According to Bill McGurn of the Wall Street Journal, every Medal of Honor awarded during these two conflicts has been awarded for saving life. Not one has been awarded for inflicting casualties on the enemy. Not one.

Gen. George Patton once famously said, "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other guy die for his."

When we think of heroism in battle, we used the think of our boys storming the beaches of Normandy under withering fire, climbing the cliffs of Pointe do Hoc while enemy soldiers fired straight down on them, and tossing grenades into pill boxes to take out gun emplacements.

That kind of heroism has apparently become passe when it comes to awarding the Medal of Honor. We now award it only for preventing casualties, not for inflicting them.

So the question is this: when are we going to start awarding the Medal of Honor once again for soldiers who kill people and break things so our families can sleep safely at night?

I would suggest our culture has become so feminized that we have become squeamish at the thought of the valor that is expressed in killing enemy soldiers through acts of bravery. We know instinctively that we should honor courage, but shy away from honoring courage if it results in the taking of life rather than in just the saving of life. So we find it safe to honor those who throw themselves on a grenade to save their buddies.

Jesus, in words often cited in ceremonies such as the one which will take place this afternoon, said, “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). So it is entirely right that we honor this kind of bravery and self-sacrifice, which is surely an imitation of the Lord of Lord and King of Kings.

However, Jesus’ act of self-sacrifice would ultimately have been meaningless - yes, meaningless - if he had not inflicted a mortal wound on the enemy while giving up his own life.

I was saved from serious injury or possibly death by the selfless act of a US Ranger who shielded me with his body during a mortar attack. I got lacerated shins - he got shrapnel in his back. That's bravery.

Rizzo et al.: The "mortal wound" in question is probably supposed to have been inflicted on Satanel's dominion over humanity. The whole point of the Passion in dispensationalism was to make humanity (well, those of humanity who swore fealty to the Christ...) acceptable to God by cloaking them in the Christ's blood, covering up/nulling their sinfulness. I've even seen one book which said that the Resurrection was primarily a REWARD to the Christ for his absolute obedience to God! Rather than, say, *the lynchpin of salvation that Paul identified it as*.

Generally speaking, modern dispensationalism sees all of history as primarily about God retaking what's his from Satanel's grasp. The vicarious atonement meant there was finally a way for humans to escape the default consignment to Hell, thus "mortally wounding" Satanel's dreams of having absolute dominion over humanity, not to mention beginning the countdown to Satanel suffering full perdition. That's what Fischer's talking about, the God/Satanel war that lies behind literally all else in his eyes.

Swede: Actually, "lo tirtzach" is better translated as "Thou shalt not *murder*". So killing in self-defense isn't interdicted. Of course, this leads into the whole nettle-thicket of what does and does not classify as self-defense, manslaughter, and murder...

According to Bill McGurn of the Wall Street Journal, every Medal of Honor awarded during these two conflicts has been awarded for saving life. Not one has been awarded for inflicting casualties on the enemy. Not one." tl;dr...

So? Isn't saving your squadmates far more important than just killing the enemy? And further proof of the Americentricism of anrrogant US fundies: Gold, Juno & Sword beaches mean nothing to you?

And ever hear of the Victoria Cross, Bryan? One notable recipient of late has been Private Johnson Beharry:

For saving the lives of his own comrades twice in Iraq, whilst himself being injured under fire.

Now Lance-Corporal Johnson Beharry, VC.

Frankly, you'd piss yourself if you had 7.62mm AK-47 fire directed towards you - whilst hiding behind a wall, Bryan. Our proud VC winner thought nothing of running into that shit, to save the lives of his comrades.

You're not fit to breathe the same air as him, Bryan.

@WWWWolf

'Gen. George Patton once famously said, "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other guy die for his."'

"Ooh, fancy quotes. I have older quotes, so I win!

Have you heard of the famous Latin phrase - "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"? "It is sweet and glorious to die for one's country"?"

We assume that Bryan is Tweeting this, whilst outside his local US armed forces recruitment offices, in the massive queue of other right-wing fundies, eagerly wanting to 'fight the good fight' in Iraq & Afghanistan, with the brave US, UK, Canadian, Australian etc troops already there.

(*Smacks forehead*)

...oh, how silly of me! He's just another Armchair General, whooping it up at the TV screen, with all Faux News' propaganda BS. Which of course omits the scenes of the flag-draped coffins coming home.

I'm with you, shadkat. I think this guy has some serious mommy issues that require immediate institutionalization. Masculine and feminine are parts of a whole, not opposites, and certainly not mutually exclusive.

“Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends” (John 15:13)

I'm no Biblical scholar but that does not sound like something that advocates killing the enemy. Sounds more like it's saying that it's better to risk your life in order to save the life of a friend.

Regarding Normandy: Yes, your boys were stroming the beaches... And the Canadian boys. And the British boys. And the Indian boys. And many of them died. Many French and German boys died as well. Every one of them left behind a family, friends, lovers. It's easy to pull the trigger and deprive them of their loved one. But, to actually make it so that this one person returns to them alive instead of in a box is a far more stunning feat.

Does this guy not realise that the Taliban don't have pill boxes to storm, or tank columns to face down in the way that the Germans had them in WWII? Last time I checked, charging at imaginary enemy positions/armour was the sort of thing that got you sent home for psychological assessment...